Tuesday, May 02, 2006
White guilt and the Kosovo question
There is something rather odd in the way America has come to fight its wars since World War II.
For one thing, it is now unimaginable that we would use anything approaching the full measure of our military power (the nuclear option aside) in the wars we fight. And this seems only reasonable given the relative weakness of our Third World enemies in Vietnam and in the Middle East. But the fact is that we lost in Vietnam, and today, despite our vast power, we are only slogging along--if admirably--in Iraq against a hit-and-run insurgency that cannot stop us even as we seem unable to stop it. Yet no one--including, very likely, the insurgents themselves--believes that America lacks the raw power to defeat this insurgency if it wants to. So clearly it is America that determines the scale of this war. It is America, in fact, that fights so as to make a little room for an insurgency.
Certainly since Vietnam, America has increasingly practiced a policy of minimalism and restraint in war. And now this unacknowledged policy, which always makes a space for the enemy, has us in another long and rather passionless war against a weak enemy.
Why this new minimalism in war?
It began, I believe, in a late-20th-century event that transformed the world more profoundly than the collapse of communism: the world-wide collapse of white supremacy as a source of moral authority, political legitimacy and even sovereignty. This idea had organized the entire world, divided up its resources, imposed the nation-state system across the globe, and delivered the majority of the world's population into servitude and oppression. After World War II, revolutions across the globe, from India to Algeria and from Indonesia to the American civil rights revolution, defeated the authority inherent in white supremacy, if not the idea itself. And this defeat exacted a price: the West was left stigmatized by its sins. Today, the white West--like Germany after the Nazi defeat--lives in a kind of secular penitence in which the slightest echo of past sins brings down withering condemnation. There is now a cloud over white skin where there once was unquestioned authority.
I call this white guilt not because it is a guilt of conscience but because people stigmatized with moral crimes--here racism and imperialism--lack moral authority and so act guiltily whether they feel guilt or not.
Read the rest of Shelby Steele's extraordinary essay, and consider a point he does not raise: that in the mind of certain Americans and most Europeans, the real difference between the wars in Iraq and Kosovo is that the latter involved bombing white people.1
_____________________________________________
1. The fact that it is hard to find a Middle Eastern Arab who does not also consider himself "white" has no bearing on the broader point, in that the Western left does not consider Arabs to be "white" for the purpose of assigning racial culpability. If it did, we would be fighting this war on entirely different terms, and there would be far more support for Israel within Western chattering classes.
26 Comments:
By 
Shochu John, at
Tue May 02, 10:10:00 AM:
This is a less than convincing argument. Kosovo did involve bombing white people, but it also was a subject for intervention in the first place because of its pale European nature. After all, we bomb because we care. Did you see any American intervention in Rwanda? How about in the entire multi-nation war around the D.R. Congo following the fall of Mobutu? It was quite a terrible situation, one which included such highlights as child armies and cannibalism. Did anybody even hear about that war outside the aforementioned chattering classes? I doubt it. It was hardly reported because, and I'll grant this is slowly starting to change, nobody cares what a bunch of black Africans do to each other. White guilt, indeed.
Also, I wonder what you mean by implying a lack of "support" for Israel amongst the chattering classes. I have been known to chatter a bit, and I tend to associate with those who also chatter. All of the chattering classes I know support Israel's existence. They may not, as I do not, support the more odious of Israeli government policy, but that does not amount to a lack of support for the country. Indeed, some Israeli government policy is actually bad for Israel, but it cannot be changed due to unfortunate political realities, namely the wacky settler movement.
By sirius_sir, at
Tue May 02, 11:34:00 AM:
SJ, you inadvertently suggest the power of racial attitudes to inform policy by citing the examples you do. I would argue that one reason we didn't get involved in Rwanda or the conflict following the fall of Mobutu may be due to our suffering the afteraffects of White Man's Burden. In a post-colonial world, it would seem, white people are in no position to tell black people what is good for them. Can you imagine the criticism the (predominately white) US would have received if, in fact, we had intervened militarily and actually started to bomb and kill black people? It would not have mattered what any of those black men might have done, the white man would have been seen as more evil.
One--I think reprehensible--criticism of our involvement in Iraq posits that Arab cultures aren't advanced enough to understand, appreciate, or engage in a liberal democractic form of government. This criticism comes--to my knowledge, exclusively--from the Left. Never mind that it is an abhorently racist idea, it seems justified to those making it in the context of the claim that it isn't up to 'us' to decide for 'them' what's best.
(As an aside, I think you should reconsider your claim about the Israeli government not being able to change policy due to political realities. Either that, or change your example. It seems to me that the Israelis have changed policy despite--and quite obviously in direct opposition to--the wacky settler movement.)
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Tue May 02, 11:36:00 AM:
Who compares a 6 billion dollar intervention sanctioned by the UN to a 200 billion dollar nearly-unilatteral pre-emptive war and comes to the conclusion that racism (or fear of racism) has made us too inhibited in the latter? Someone who writes books on "White Guilt", that's who.
We never questioned our moral authority, not even when people like Pope John Paul II told us to.
By Geek, Esq., at
Tue May 02, 11:54:00 AM:
This essay misses the entire point.
One doesn't defeat insurgencies through 'raw power' just like a surgeon doesn't remove a tumor because he can bench press 400 lbs.
By Westhawk, at
Tue May 02, 12:50:00 PM:
We have our response to Mr. Steele here,
Shelby Steele should try the view from downrange.
Mr. Steele doesn't know much about counterinsurgency tactics. Was he possibly a consultant to the Red Army during its days in Afghanistan?
Westhawk
By Astro, at
Tue May 02, 12:58:00 PM:
geek,
On the other hand, removing a tumor is a lot harder if you are terrified of blood. You simply can't make a cut if you are unwilling to damage good tissue in the process. Plus, the analogy is retarded anyways, unless you've had a tumor that bites back at the scalpel.
By Shochu John, at
Tue May 02, 02:05:00 PM:
Sirius sir says, "SJ, you inadvertently suggest the power of racial attitudes to inform policy by citing the examples you do."
There was nothing inadvertent about it. I state specifically how racial attitudes inform policy. Did you not read this line, "It was hardly reported because, and I'll grant this is slowly starting to change, nobody cares what a bunch of black Africans do to each other." I was arguing specfically against this notion that there is a GREATER resistence to comitting acts of war against white people than nonwhites, which, if you'll note, is the psoition that TH and his quoted piece both take. I am, in fact, arguing the opposite position. The fact that there are white folks about makes it MORE likely that the US will intervene. Note that I at NO point argued that race had nothing to do with it.
While your "aftereffects of White Man's Burden" argument is interesting, it is not very compelling. If we wanted to help but were afiraid of killing people, wouldn't there be some sort of public discourse on the matter? Public discourse, however, presupposes public interest, and what public interest is there in African wars? Just compare news coverage relative to body count in Kosovo vs. Central Africa. I recall, though cannot cite, a study which rated US media coverage of deaths around the world and quantitatively ranked the value of lives based on quanitity and placement of news coverage. So 1 American life = X European lives = Y Israeli lives and so on. All the way at the bottom was African lives. Basically, it is nearly impossible for there to be an African war/genocide big enough to knock the lastest blond white girl in trouble off of the 10 minute rotation on Fox News. Nothing about this gives the impression that anybody feels racial guilt about past treatment of Africans.
Then we see a familiar straw man "One--I think reprehensible--criticism of our involvement in Iraq posits that Arab cultures aren't advanced enough to understand, appreciate, or engage in a liberal democractic form of government."
I've at no point actually seen anybody make the argument that Iraqis are racially incapable of democratic rule. I'm sure such people exist sitting in a cabin somewhere in Idaho polishing their Lugers, but why even entertain it as part of the discourse?
Back to Israel (isn't it always), "It seems to me that the Israelis have changed policy despite--and quite obviously in direct opposition to--the wacky settler movement"
Well, to a limited extent, yes. The Gaza settlements were dismantled and the West Bank settlements were expanded. Even this is inoterable to the wacky settler movement (hereinafter "WSM"). The WSM is the driving force behind the expansion of settlements which only serve to push any peace further and further away. I, as do many Israelis on the opposite side of the political spectrum than the WSM, think it would be far more advtageous to the peace, secuirty, as well as moral health of Israel to dismatle the settlements rather than expanding them. Note, this makes me a supporter of Israel, not an opponent of it.
By Geek, Esq., at
Tue May 02, 02:07:00 PM:
Steele starts with the assumption that 'raw power' can defeat an insurgency. That is a factual insurgency, as many great powers have discovered.
The US occupation in Iraq suffers from a lack of adequate planning and skill, not because the planners lack the requisite bloodthirstiness.
By skipsailing, at
Tue May 02, 02:40:00 PM:
Wow geek you are just so unbelievably ill informed. do you really think that your thoughtless diatribe has any basis in fact?
I guess it amounts to this geek, who ya gonna believe, the KOSkids or your own lying eyes?
By sirius_sir, at
Tue May 02, 03:17:00 PM:
SJ, my apology. I should have said you inadvertently suggest the power of racial attitudes to inform policy in a direction you did not intend by citing the examples you do. I hope my previous comment makes better sense in that context.
I understand and accept what you are saying as well. I do think, regrettably, there is too often a higher concern (at least in the media) given for the welfare of 'white' as opposed to 'black' people. I am only to attempting to supply another possiblity other than pure racism as to why a predominately white society may be reluctant to intervene to stop black on black violence in a foreign land. (And Africa, at that.)
I am surprised you do not remember the "Arabs are incapable of democracy" argument, as it was prominent trope of anti-Bush critics. (Would that not then, by definition, make it an argument from the Left?) Admittedly, on reflection, most self-respecting people would naturally want to distance themselves or at least disavow a racist element to such conjecture. In any event I refer you to our esteemed host for at least one citation of such thinking. Quoting here: "As the winds, or at least breezes, of change sweep the Arab world, anti-Bush critics of American policy in the region have switched from claiming that the Arabs are incapable of democracy to arguing that democracy will not favor American interests."
By 
, at
Tue May 02, 04:51:00 PM:
We can bomb the shit outta your country! Especially if your country is full of brown people. Oh, we like that, don't we? That's our hobby now. But it's also our new job in the world: bombing
brown people. Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Libya. You got some brown people in your country? Tell 'em to watch the fuck out, or we'll goddamn bomb them!
Well, who were the last white people you can remember that we bombed? In fact, can you remember any white people we ever bombed? The Germans! That's it! Those are the only ones. And that was only because they were tryin' to
cut in on our action.
-George Carlin
By skipsailing, at
Tue May 02, 04:52:00 PM:
Sirius sir has it just about right. To me the left tried a variety of arguments in an attempt to find something that would give them some traction.
I clearly recall the "arabs can't do democracy" approach. It's a really bigoted concept but they ran with it.
The other really offensive anti war argument was "The ME was stable before Bush invaded". this line of reasoning essentially condemns the people of the region to lives of grinding poverty and oppression in the name of "stability". It's sickening really.
the argument I've seen lately is much more subtle. In the beginning of the Iraq conflict many anti war posters were aghast that America provided some support for Saddam.
One poster advised me that "Rumsfeld shook Saddam's hand, I have the picture." When I pointed out that FDR shook Stalin's hand and I had the picture the silence was deafening.
Now I'm seeing a different response. Lately these anti war folks are attempting to convince us that lend lease was a bad idea and FDR, icon that he is, was wrong to support Stalin against Hitler.
I can only conclude that this argument is the natural outgrowth of the response to the original "we made Saddam what he is" argument.
it's just so silly. the anti war crowd continues to sink to new depths of depravity in their determination to make Iraq a failure.
By hepzeeba, at
Tue May 02, 05:20:00 PM:
Perhaps you all should read the essay. (TigerHawk's point was about what Steele doesn't say.)
Steele's central argument is not about racism as a factor in how ferociously we conduct war. It is about the role of political correctness in contemporary warfare.
He writes: "Today words like 'power' and 'victory' are so stigmatized with Western sin that, in many quarters, it is politically incorrect even to utter them. For the West, 'might' can never be right. And victory, when won by the West against a Third World enemy, is always oppression."
Also, I haven't been able to find statistics about this, but Israel is not really a "white" country. And the WSM is only one factor in Israeli right-wing politics. There is huge number of Israelis (Jews)of Arab/Middle Eastern origin. They have very long memories. They, not the WSM, comprise the "base" of the Israeli right.
Steele's argument about political correctness as the lens through which the West's aggressiveness is viewed also have a huge bearing on sentiment vis-a-vis Israel.
Namely, Israel flies in the face of political correctness.
By hepzeeba, at
Tue May 02, 05:23:00 PM:
Steele's argument...has
not
Steele's argument...have
By Shochu John, at
Tue May 02, 07:47:00 PM:
Geek, Esq. says, "Steele starts with the assumption that 'raw power' can defeat an insurgency. That is a factual insurgency, as many great powers have discovered. The US occupation in Iraq suffers from a lack of adequate planning and skill, not because the planners lack the requisite bloodthirstiness."
This is a fine point. It is possible to beat an isnurgence with sheer brutality. We can call it the Roman formula. If a local population is giving you trouble, you can either put them all to the sword or enslave them and disperse them through your realm. Unless we want to go truly Roman, Geek is absolutely correct. Becoming more brutal will only serve to turn the population against us and to the insurgence.
sirius says, "I am surprised you do not remember the "Arabs are incapable of democracy" argument, as it was prominent trope of anti-Bush critics. (Would that not then, by definition, make it an argument from the Left?)"
It seems to me that the "Arabs are incapable of democracy" argument is not so much a trope of anti-Bush critics but a straw man of Bush supporters. I challenge you to find any Leftie who actually made it. I do not deny that Lefties make some dumb arguments, but I don't think this one can honestly be counted amongst them. All you proved with your link is that TH also is a fan of the straw man. Also, you can't be serious in that only the Left criticises Bush. Bush criticisms come from the Right (i.e. Buchanan, Buckley) as well as the Left and Center.
Skipsailing adds, "The other really offensive anti war argument was 'The ME was stable before Bush invaded'."
Now this is the root of an argument that has been made, and one that I myself have made. I disagree that it is offensive, but first the reason you think it is, "[T]his line of reasoning essentially condemns the people of the region to lives of grinding poverty and oppression in the name of 'stability'. It's sickening really."
Well you have to look at the status quo versus what you can realistically hope to accomplish. If the choice is between grinding poverty and oppression and a period of outright massacres and bloodshed in the streets which is to be followed by who knows what, then absolutely stick with stability. You ONLY de-stabilize a situation if you realistically think its successor will be better. To do less is to cast a lot of innocent people from a bad situation to a worse one.
Finally, "it's just so silly. the anti war crowd continues to sink to new depths of depravity in their determination to make Iraq a failure."
As I already stated, Lefties have been known to make poor arguments, but Iraq is a failure without their help.
By Final Historian, at
Tue May 02, 09:22:00 PM:
"If the choice is between grinding poverty and oppression and a period of outright massacres and bloodshed in the streets which is to be followed by who knows what, then absolutely stick with stability."
That stability bought us 9/11. You can keep it if you want.
If you want to see how your "stability" is in fact a long term recipe for disaster, I suggest you google up "belmont club" and "Three Conjectures".
By sirius_sir, at
Wed May 03, 12:23:00 AM:
SJ, the argument--at least as preserved in print--may more accurately be that Arab culture is incapable of democracy. Robert Fisk has made this argument. I'll leave it to you to decide whether or not he qualifies as a member of the Left.
You are, of course, correct in pointing out that criticism of the President comes from all quarters and is no sure indication of political inclination. That was a sloppy bit of reasoning on my part. In fact, George Will, a Conservative critic, has himself dismissed the idea of bringing democracy to the Arab Middle East as something of a fool's errand.
So, the Arabs are either clouded by "superstition and other ignorance" (Will) or "the problem is the environment, the make-up of the patriarchal society and - most important of all - the artificial states which we created for them. They do not and cannot produce democracy." (Fisk)
Choose your poison I guess.
By jpe, at
Wed May 03, 12:27:00 PM:
Becoming more brutal will only serve to turn the population against us and to the insurgence.
That's the part that boggles my mind about Steele's argument. Loosely, he seems to claim that we'd be brutal and hellbent on killing civilians if it weren't for "white guilt."
The obvious rejoinder is: so much the better for white guilt, then.
Re: Arabs & democracy: the argument has certainly been made that middle eastern societies aren't ready for democracy, but it's a cultural argument, not a racial one.
By Shochu John, at
Wed May 03, 01:18:00 PM:
"the problem is the environment, the make-up of the patriarchal society and - most important of all - the artificial states which we created for them. They do not and cannot produce democracy." (Fisk)
OK, but that does not in any way reflect the straw man argument that Arabs can't do democracy. The main thrust of the above statement is that the artificial nature of the states is the chief reason democracy does not take hold in the region. This has quite a bit of truth to it and it is not limited to Arab nations. Most of Africa has the same exact problem. Yugoslavia had a similar one. To turn this argument into a racist contrivance of "Arabs are incapable of democracy" is terribly dishonest.
final historian says, "That stability bought us 9/11. You can keep it if you want."
And this instability makes another 9.11 less likely precisely how? Even Hitchens thinks the fly paper theory is asinine and he'll jump on any justification for the Iraq war.
By sirius_sir, at
Wed May 03, 02:27:00 PM:
SJ, the statement "They do not and cannot [my emphasis] produce democracy" speaks for itself.
Whether you argue this is due to racial or cultural impediments is immaterial to the fundamental premise that 'Arabs are incapable of democracy'. That statement doesn't presuppose the reason they cannot and doesn't necessarily impute an overtly racist bias to those who have made the argument. In fact I have already softened my initial statement to magnanimously suggest the idea behind this argument may in fact arise more from a perception of stunted cultural conditioning than anything else. And yet, I hope you would agree, to argue that Arabs "do not and cannot produce democracy" is, on the face of it, an outrageous assertion. Especially when one considers this statement is being used as an argument against even trying to implement democracy, and thus improving the lot of Arabs, in the Middle East.
If such a statement isn't patently racist, I believe it sure cuts awfully close to the line. And I can just imagine the reaction if the tables were turned and George W. had made such a claim instead of one of the media darlings of the Left.
By Sirkowski, at
Wed May 03, 03:45:00 PM:
The fascists are coming out of the woodwork...
By Shochu John, at
Wed May 03, 06:18:00 PM:
Sirius,
You entire point on the Fisk quote turns on "Arabs 'do not and cannot produce democracy'" I don't think that is a proper reading of the point, though I would be interested to see the verbiage surrounding this passage. This, "most important of all - the artificial states which we created for them. They do not and cannot produce democracy." gives me the impression that it is chiefly the nature of the states that result in not producing democracy, not the nature of the people. Does "They" reference Arabs or Arab states? You seem to think the former while I the latter. While he does reference cultural issues, it seems not to be the main problem in his view. I will add that while I think Fisk makes a valid point with reference to some states, it falters with reference to others. Iraq, for example has an extremely messy ethnic and sectarian makeup that is a basic result of how the borders were drawn, which makes it very hard to govern democratically. A country like Egypt, on the other hand, is much more uniform in terms of sect and ethnicity and would be far easier to govern democratically. The fact that it is a dictatorship, I would say, is more a matter of historical accident. In any case while I disagree with it on some of the finer points, I still would not characterize Fisk's statement here as culturally bigoted.
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed May 03, 08:25:00 PM:
Race-based politics are un-American bullshit. We're supposed to be above that kind of classification here. An American is an American, not an African-American, a Mexican-American, an Italian-American, et cetera.
A soldier is a soldier, a friend is a friend, and an enemy is an enemy.
By , at
Thu May 04, 01:06:00 AM:
skipsailing,
"a variety of arguements in an attempt to find something that would give them some traction".
That comment is the definition of projection.
Wasn't the war about WMDs? Oh yeah, that's already been debunked.
Then it was about bringing democracy to the middle east (remember the winning the hearts and mind crap?).
Now we're not resolute enough to kill as many Iraqi's as we need to.
So much for the "heart and minds" winning.
We both know the REAL reason (I repeat, reason--not excuse) for this wat.
Did you ever hear anyone say, "it's not the money, it's the principle of the thing"?
When you hear it, you know the speaker means "it's the money".
This war has a similar saying: "it's not the oil, it's ..."
By sirius_sir, at
Thu May 04, 10:37:00 AM:
SJ, thank you for your reasoned response and the caliber of your argument throughout. I take your point that "They" references "the artificial states" and not the Arab populations within them. Still, I'm not sure you can so easily separate culture from the state in which it exists. (And as you suggest it's perhaps erroneous to speak of 'Arab' culture, as though it were one monolithic whole.) But in any case, the broader point remains, which I put as a question: Isn't it time, finally, to allow these Arab populations in the ME who have been so put upon by "the artificial states which we created for them" to have a chance to develop something better? It would seem Fisk's answer is no, for his argument is that for whatever reason the status quo doesn't produce democracy.
And yet that's the whole point. The status quo (or, more properly, what was the status quo) doesn't produce democracy. What, then, is the argument against changing the status quo, thereby allowing at least the chance for improvement?
Do we just continue to say "No, they (Arabs--the race, the culture, the artificial states in which they find themselves) just don't do democracy, and leave it at that? How can that answer be something a liberal mind endorses?
By Barry, at
Fri May 05, 08:27:00 PM:
I don't think the American people have the stomach to watch the US military wage all-out war, WW2-style.
Can you imagine thousands of tanks rolling across the Middle East, destroying everything in their path? (Patton vs. Wehrmacht, 1944-45)
Wave after wave of bombers reducing the region to rubble? And then bombing the rubble some more? (USAF over Europe, 1943-45)
Incendiary bomb raids turning Damascus and Tehran into maelstroms of fire? (USAF firebomb raids over Japan, 1945)
No, it wouldn't go over well with CBS and the NYTimes. America would be too uncomfortable crushing the enemy so brutally.
It's what's needed. And it'll never happen.
